Instigator / Pro
4
1500
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#4119
Holocaust-denial legislation is driven more by a desire to criminalise thus stigmatise dissent than by a desire to mitigate harm, resulting from Holocaust denial, to individual Jews.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
Definitions:
Holocaust: the WW2 Jewish Holocaust
Holocaust denial: any attempt to deny, distort, dispute or downplay the established popular history of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust
Holocaust-denial legislation: the legislation varies across countries but generally criminal fines and/or imprisonment is enabled via this legislation for public Holocaust denial, usually without a requirement to prove intent to cause harm (there are some exceptions). Some countries have a general genocide-denial law: this includes Holocaust denial in this definition.
Dissent: having or expressing an opinion different from a prevailing or official position; disagreement.
Harm to individual Jews: hate crimes or tangible criminal behaviour as reported by individuals identifying as Jewish (not the Jewish community overall) and suffered by that person.
Notes and rules:
I use the words "individual Jews" rather than "the Jewish community" because I am sure you will agree it's a given that there would be harm caused to the Jewish community if the desire was generally accepted to be to criminalise thus stigmatise dissent. The rationale given for the introduction of these laws is in most cases pertinent to hate crimes suffered by individual Jews - also consider that there is no way for a community to collectively report to authorities a hate crime on itself so there is no way to find or gauge statistics on this.
The debate is about *the desire* that drives the legislation to come into effect, *not the reason* for it to come into effect. i.e. the motive behind the introduction of legislation. Please note in this regard by "desire" I mean the mission (an ambition or purpose that is assumed by a person or group[https://www.wordnik.com/words/mission]) of NGOs (non-governmental organisations) who lobby for the introduction of such legislation via the creation thereof by a governmental authority.
In short: the debate does not concern the desire of *government* to create the law (that is the government's job anyway), rather that of *the group* behind the introduction of it to government.
Debate will be mostly theoretical and statistical.
BoP is effectively shared.
No new arguments in final round.
No kritiks.
No timewasters.
No timeout-forfeits, please.
Disagreements about the definitions and notes and rules can be settled during the debate and any disagreements and resulting discussions thereof should be considered part of the debate arguments, unless those disagreements are settled in the comments prior to the first round being argued by Pro.
Round 1
Good day and good luck to my opponent, Sir.Lancelot.
I begin by introducing the nation to most recently outlaw Holocaust denial: Canada. Trying to find the first source of the push for this effort has been challenging. One of the earliest mentions I can find online is here http://bit.ly/3xeg2w6, page 17:
In September 1997, at the opening of B'nai Brith Canada's International Symposium on Hate on the Internet, co-chair Lawrence Hart, stated that,"The Internet may be seen as a great equalizer of information and disinformation, allowing Holocaust educators and Holocaust deniers to share the same legitimacy through search engines, bringing this pernicious form of antisemitism, racism and hate directly into the homes of children researching their history projects."
So here we have, 26 years ago, the internet, a tool of mass communication, being predicted to be "a great equalizer of information and disinformation". Yet today any dissenting views on the Holocaust are censored or buried across the internet, with many people unable to articulate a precise point of a Holocaust denier. They know they exist, but they know not what they say; and this pattern is repeated in this area of history, with dissenting views hidden but popular views promoted, even to the point where 'debunking' videos are available when the video or work being debunked is simply 'unavailable' as it is so difficult to find. So I suppose whomever has decided what side is disinformation has come out victorious, and we need not be so worried. Still, Holocaust-denial legislation is being pushed for worldwide, by the UN in 2022[http://bit.ly/3xecE4r] and by NGOs in the United States, arguably the last bastion of freedom of speech worldwide. From the remarks of Christopher Wolf, Founder and Chair, Anti-Defamation League Task Force on Internet Hate[http://bit.ly/3E0v90i]
... that is largely because of the legal framework in my home country, the US. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes freedom of expression and protects virtually all speech, even the most repugnant such as Holocaust denial. The law may be used only if hate speech creates an imminent threat of violence or interferes directly with individuals' legal rights. Unlike in many countries, there is no human right to be free from the indignity of hate speech that can be balanced against another's right to free expression.I think it is fair to say that under the First Amendment, the US is a de facto a haven for hate speech, essentially free from the strictures of the law, and Internet content can be published in the US and broadcast to the world. Although a former French Minister of Justice loudly said "Stop hiding behind the First Amendment at an OSCE conference on online hate speech," the fact is that the First Amendment and its expansive effects are here to stay.
Mr. Wolf sounds irritated that the First Amendment exists, referring to it as a "haven for hate speech."
Mr. Wolf, it is a haven for free speech, some of which you may consider to be hateful; it is not a haven for hate speech, whatever that actually is.
Would Wolf rather the First Amendment was given an exclusion for Holocaust denial? I can categorically say: yes. He goes on to conclude with suggestions that the alternative to introducing Holocaust-denial legislation where he cannot do it is to censor and override dissenting views:
Instead of the law as a first resort, I urge greater focus on education and counter-speech, and greater involvement of Internet intermediaries. These tools, in the end, have greater potential to combat online Holocaust denial.
This is a key point. Mr. Wolf does not show regard for individual Jews in this essay. Mr. Wolf was the chair of the ADL task force on internet hate. Mr. Wolf mentions 'denial' over 40 times in this essay, while mentioning 'Jew' only 8 times, none of which referring to individual Jews and 3 of which being in this revealing paragraph:
I want to provide a brief code to the discussion earlier at this conference of the appearance on Google Search of "Jew Watch" when the search term Jew was used. You should know that after discussions between the ADL and Google, Google agreed to post a sponsored link adjacent to the Jew Watch search listing pointing out that it is objectionable and providing a discussion of anti-Semitism and a link to an ADL site. This is an example of intermediary cooperation and the use of counter-speech, which should be promoted and expanded.
Counter-speech, essentially, is partial censorship via interjection, or prohibiting the display of material without the opposing material, an activity that is promoted in reverse for the story of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust - you can look anywhere for examples of this, and here is one[http://bit.ly/3YHwxN1] - you will find, on third-party (i.e. not Holocaust memorial organisations or pro-Holocaust NGOs) information about how to teach the Holocaust story to children without any mention of information that does not support their story, of which there is plenty, when one is able to find it.
Mr. Wolf reveals his intent repeatedly, perhaps without realising it:
Of course, US-based Internet companies make efforts to comply with local speech codes outside the US, but even where compliance is attempted, the sheer volume of user postings makes compliance difficult to achieve. Especially with an issue as complex as hate speech, technological filters play a limited role.
"the sheer volume of postings" -- at what volume does it become a common opinion? And who is he to decide how 'postings' translate to harm to individual Jews, something he doesn't appear to care about as much as aggressively suppressing any discussion of the Holocaust beyond the scope of the popular narrative. People do not change their opinions when their views are censored and their voices are silenced. Censorship will not reduce harm caused to Jews, especially now, in the digital age, when we are seeing increasing efforts by ADL and the like to silence dissenting voices, meaning only that people are not satisfied by answers they have been given and are still talking about it, spreading their thoughts, 'dissenting', so they say.
I fully believe that censorship cannot result in less harm to individual Jews. There is no benefit to be had with silencing, for example, 37% of millennials and Gen Zers in Holland, a country with Holocaust-denial legislation, who believe that 2 million or fewer Jews were exterminated as part of the Holocaust[http://bit.ly/3K95ohQ] - they are all breaking the law. It is argued repeatedly that 'education' is the key to improving Holocaust knowledge. But what education can be provided? Considering that these students already learn about this topic in school and still deny it happened that way, in a country that has criminalised open disagreement with the established history of this time.
Holocaust memorial museums are persistently uninterested in performing evidence-based research, e.g. forensic excavations and topographical mappings, in my opinion for fear that they will expose discrepancies in a not-so-carefully crafted 'twist of truth' - I can't think of another reason than disorganisation or inconsideration of the dead, other than the potential for imprisonment if they discover something that contradicts the narrative and are forced to publish it in their results. If they want younger people to believe what they say, horror stories and censorship only forces those they want to instruct to focus their curious and skeptical minds on a hunt for answers the museums and Holocaust centres do not or cannot provide, eventually discovering the buried posts of Holocaust revisionism; evidently a great number of these people are been convinced there is something amiss.
This survey reveals the troubling and unwavering desire to try to hit numbers of 100% across the board for Holocaust acceptance. This is impossible. Even increasing the numbers is going to be unlikely unless they start to bring out new evidence that counters what the censored/buried revisonist movement has been working on for decades, in the dark to most, including a large proportion of those surveyed answering positively to the questions, I argue, for I know many of them cannot have stumbled across the opposite side of the discussion - it is something that must be sought out, never presented. And if millennials and Gen Zers aren't so easily convinced there is something wrong with the story, what made them answer '2 million or fewer' despite that in school they are bashed over the head with '6 million'? I'll tell you what: hard, objective science and logical deduction, something that resonates in the minds of the youth. It's not hate. It's debate. And NGOs such as ADL do not want debate.
Even with censorship and name-calling ("hatemongers", "neo-Nazis", etc), the revisionist arguments start to leak out. If it is hate, I am confused - subjectively, of course - for I have not found one hateful revisionist in all my time studying this topic. Those who use the word 'hate' are infinitely more aggressive and rude and illogical in their words than those who don't. So without censorship on this topic - could there be more harm to individual Jews? Potentially. It's not easy to know. It is a wide-ranging topic with so much controversy. But I do believe open and accepted debate on the matter should never be criminalised or stigmatised, for it pushes discussions underground and they become siloed in camps, resulting in anger and possibly violent reactions to what these people understandably consider unwarranted suppression of their human rights, namely articles 2, 19 and 26.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Hypothetically, if the Holocaust were a lie, which I and most revisionists I have encountered argue is a ridiculous notion, considering the ambiguity and breadth of meaning of the term, would individual Jews be responsible for that? I and most other reasonable persons would not say so. It would be at the very least a lesson to be learned from and not let happen again.
It is almost impossible to predict what would happen. But it is clear to me that the goal of criminalisation is to suppress dissent rather than mitigate harm. There is desire to mitigate harm, inherently of this effort, to individual Jews, at the very least because those making the effort are Jews, who it can be expected do not wish to be harmed as result of Holocaust denial, and at the most to all Jews; but my argument is that this is not the foremost desire: if indeed it was, all discussion of the Holocaust would be either open and free or fully criminalised, not only the dissenting side, considering the unavoidable reality of the persistence of Holocaust denial across ethnicities, nationalities and ages, giving credit to legitimate doubt, not hate - unless, of course, everybody who dissents is hateful, and it is irrational to believe such a thing when one knows just how many people can be counted in the definition "Holocaust denier."
See here an article by revisionist Thomas Dalton, PhD.: http://bit.ly/3K4PDsm where he presents the results, originally posted on Techpedia[http://bit.ly/3RRBtN4][http://bit.ly/3RQ7S6S] of demographical research to attempt to count and gauge Holocaust denial worldwide. I believe the original source is survey commissioned by ADL, which is summarised here by region[http://bit.ly/3YLl3Ie] and here by summary[http://bit.ly/3YHwNeX]
Note that some countries are at such a low figure that it would be ludicrous to consider denial legislation in them and surely it would be counterproductive to introduce it to government, further marginalising Jews who exist there as extreme minority groups. But: is that the foremost rationale for Jewish NGOs not having attempted this? After all, they aren't stopping with their attempts to do this. Since 2012[https://bit.ly/3HLwFEs] it has been criminalised in five countries, with bills pending in the Brazilian congress for a sixth. Israel pushes it at the UN.[https://bit.ly/3DZgN01] Surely if this continues this will cause issues for the minority groups of Jews in the plethora of countries whose populations do not generally believe the Holocaust happened and is fairly described by history? For it does seem like a waste of time to introduce such legislation in a country whose population disagrees with the premise of such; in effect, to bring such an idea to a country, you say you think they are 'lost' or 'not getting it' or 'not educated.'
And that begs the question: are those in the countries in which denial laws exist more educated somehow than those in which it doesn't? A crude correlation, perhaps, but one worth mentioning.
Still, education is not working. Especially when people are thrown into cells in Germany simply for being an expert witness in a trial of a denier, for example. Yes, simply stating your expert opinion as an expert witness will get you imprisoned if the opinion hints at or forms a conclusion that the Holocaust is not fairly described by history. Seems a tad... unnecessary... if the true goal is to educate and not to censor and conceal and suppress dissent. If the Holocaust did happen the way they say it happened, there should be no fear of people finding out it didn't - but that fear is clear in the active persecution of critical thought in countries such as Germany.
India, for example, is presented at 7% of people who believe the Holocaust happened and is fairly described by history. Even if this figure is inaccurate, the words of ADL et al. would be laughable here. 93% hatemongers. 90% hatemongers. Even 50% hatemongers is absolutely ridiculous. And far less ridiculous than the notion of Holocaust denial sounds to those in the countries in which it is censored/suppressed that have never heard the counterarguments to the popular history, I am sure.
Saudi Arabia: 3%
Brazil: 59%
Peru: 39%
South Africa: 20%
Australia: 82%
China: 42%
Russia: 50%
Canada 87%
Turkey: 26%
Poland: 62%
France: 78%
Indonesia: 3%
Now consider some typical statements that attempt to paint a picture of hate and anti-Semitism where there is no logical, fair reason to do so - such statements serve to close the door to open debate and resolution of discrepancy in the popular history:
"Holocaust denial is a form of hate speech because it willfully promotes enmity against an identifiable group based on ethnicity and religion."[Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Holocaust Denial is Hate Speech, AMSTERDAM L. F., Fall 2009, at 33, 35; https://bit.ly/3K0guFW, page 6]
"Holocaust Denial is a Form of Hate"[http://bit.ly/3jU6Dab]
"Holocaust denial is an act of hate"[http://bit.ly/3K4v53d]
"The primary motivation for most deniers is anti-Semitism, and for them the Holocaust is an infuriatingly inconvenient fact of history."[Geri J. Yonover, Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial in the Academy: A Tort Remedy, 101 DICK. L. REV. 71 (1996);https://bit.ly/3K0guFW]
This type of statement is easy to find online. If disagreement, and objection, and desire to fill gaping holes left behind in history, is driven by a hatred of Jews, and Jewish leaders want this addressed, instead of pushing for legislation criminalising denial would it not be easier to commission a study to examine the claims of some of the more revered among the revisionists - whose arguments are almost completely ignored by mainstream historians - to put to bed their claims or at least objectively render them insignificant? Ignoring their objections and suppressing discussion thereof is not going to help reduce 'denial' and 'hate', and I argue it has gone the other way, in that people are now ignoring these repeated, baseless claims of 'hate' and hunting for the revisionist material they keep calling 'hateful': that it is censored and buried gives it more credibility when those calling it 'hate' repeatedly fail to address it directly. The longer I see this 'hate' propaganda without any seeming desire to attempt to sit down and discuss the revisionist arguments, the more I know attempts to criminalise denial originate in a desire to mitigate harm to popular history, caused by the glaring, unanswered questions on the Holocaust, not in a desire to mitigate harm to any individual, including Jews.
Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf and Jürgen Graf are some of the more formidable names that are more likely to be attacked as characters than academically or scientifically challenged; a simple search on Amazon or Barnes & Noble will provide you with books about them or debunking them, or books by them not related to the Holocaust - but the original Holocaust-revisionism books written by them are alas unavailable - this is due to Amazon removing these books, not due to their breaking any laws - and you can see that for yourself if you navigate to amazon.com, put a USA ZIP code in, and perform the searches. A summary of this very Amazon action in a video here[http://bit.ly/3RTk6eL]
But when one digs up these books (http://bit.ly/3YK2gxe or http://bit.ly/3HT3lMm) one sees they are objectively scientific and/or critique-based in nature - claims of 'hate' and 'anti-Semitic' are no more than attempts to inhibit people looking for and reading these books lest they make their own decisions after examining both sides of the argument.
---
Back to Canada:
A more recent mention of the attempts to introduce legislation criminalising Holocaust denial is made in this 2022 article[http://bit.ly/3YLlxy3]:
Ottawa, ON – As part of Bill C-19, the Budget Implementation Act, the federal government has taken a stand against antisemitism in Canada by criminalizing Holocaust denial. This is an important development for Canadians, including the Jewish community who, spearheaded by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, have long been advocating for this change to the criminal code. The cross-party support for criminalizing Holocaust denial demonstrates the understanding among all parties that antisemitism is an insidious threat, and more tools are needed to fight it.Antisemitic hate crimes, the use of symbols of hate, and incidents of Holocaust denial and distortion are on the rise in Canada. Making Holocaust denial a criminal offence will raise public awareness of these dangers and provide the necessary legal tools to prosecute those who peddle this pernicious form of antisemitism.
Exactly how long they have been advocating for this change is not clear.
"Denying the Holocaust is a reliable predictor of radicalization and an indication that antisemitism is on the rise," said Gail Adelson-Marcovitz, Chair of the National Board of Directors of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). "Rising antisemitism should be a concern for all Canadians because we know that what starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews. When antisemitism is allowed to flourish, it tears at the fabric of society to the detriment of all citizens.
"Holocaust denial is a reliable predictor of radicalisation" - well, of course it is, if the denial is a radical, or unpopular, notion.
"Holocaust denial is an indication that anti-Semitism is on the rise" - well, yes, that would make perfect sense, if 'anti-Semitism' is a label applied to any dissenting view on the story of the Holocaust.
These bloated press statements contradict themselves and, more importantly, are based on the presumption of right vs wrong. Holocaust right; dissent wrong. It's an archaic way of dealing with one of the most important events in modern history; and a typical argument against deniers is so untrue I could weep: "the Holocaust is one of the best documented events in history."
You can perform a web search for this claim and you will see many people saying it; but it simply isn't true. Did you know: approximately one third of all Holocaust victims are attributed to three camps (Sobibor, Treblinka, and Belzec) yet one revisionist claims we have no physical buildings at those sites, no physical evidence at those sites showing a genocide happened there, no bodies of victims, and only a handful of witnesses who claim to have been there when the Soviets arrived at the camps. This is detailed in a 4-hour documentary called "One Third of the Holocaust"[http://bit.ly/3E0uiwh] among other documentaries and books - perhaps if such claims were ridiculous, they should be given an unrestricted public forum so that they may be openly discredited. Instead, videos such as this are censored, blocked or buried from video-sharing websites like Youtube. There is a debunking site here[http://bit.ly/3YIfzy9] which makes decent, albeit presumptory and theoretical for the most part, arguments to the contrary - inspecting both source material and rebuttal should be permitted, so that we may all gain greater knowledge of this historical event through the differing opinions of others, considering that so much of the evidence begs interpretation before it may yield part of a conclusion.
A desire to censor and prevent open discussion on this topic is not only disrespectful to those who died, and to those Jews in existence today with relatives who died or went missing during WW2, but is a moral violation of the freedom to have and hold opinions, political or otherwise, and, more importantly to prevent isolation of groups from discourse, to share said opinions without fear of financial and legal repercussion.
The annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents is a record of reported hate crime incidents suffered my Jews in Canada. The reports are made by B'nai Brith Canada[http://bit.ly/3lqcbto] and are collected from several sources, including policing services and victims.
Examining these reports, I begin to doubt the legitimacy of or malicious intent in some of the incident details. I have picked some awkward ones from the year 2000 and you can judge for yourself; indeed you're going to have to, because in the reports there are no citations, references, or any other sources. In the later reports there are pictures, but there are no links to books or newspaper editions.
A student walked in to a Toronto high school classroom and claimed that he would go into a bar mitzvah wearing swastikas and saying Heil Hitler.
The Human Resources Manager at the National offices of B'nai Brith Canada received a phone message stating "This is Mr. Hitler calling about the position you advertised and I'm just... you can call me back and Heil Hitler."
A Quebec judge responded to a synagogue congregation's application for a building permit with the slur "You people took 40 years to get out of the desert and I won't tolerate those kinds of delays here."
One important thing I want to note: hardly any of these anti-Semitic incidents are of a violent nature (as understood by the reporting breakdown by category). Due to the lack of source material to verify their truthfulness, even police reports or incident numbers, I find it telling that harassment incidents far outweigh vandalism incidents. Vandalism is easier to perform and is usually done at night when nobody is able to witness it. Harassment incidents can be fabricated at will ("this happened to a person" or "this happened to me" and there is no way to know it happened via the report - we simply must trust the report (and with it lobby for the creation of laws).
“There are countless unreported incidents, because they are [considered] ‘minor’, but we should be aware that they exist.” - A mother commenting on an antisemitic incident at her son’s sports game. [http://bit.ly/3RUevoB, page 11]
Well, it seems to me that there isn't much more minor than harassment, especially considering the light nature of a lot of these reports. For example, quite a lot of them are jokes about stereotypes. While still considered a hate crime by the victim, these jokes are commonplace across all peoples and are laughed off or ignored as a matter of course: what would be more minor? So I'm not sure what she (if this unnamed mother exists) is referring to with her claim. I do agree when she says there are 'countless' unreported incidents - that is simply because it is not possible to count them, if they even exist.
On page 6 of the 1989 report, B'nai Brith uses the term "the fantasy world of Holocaust denial." A strange and inconsiderate way to refer to a route of critical thought so purportedly dangerous and hateful. Preventing persons from entering a fantasy world: does this warrant a push for legislation? Remember: an individual, representing B'nai Brith, wrote this; and an individual, representing B'nai Brith, reviewed this; then B'nai Brith published it.
Fast forward to 2021, and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs calls it a "pernicious form of antisemitism."[http://bit.ly/3IeVUAm] Pernicious means, according to Merriam-Webster[http://bit.ly/3RU9Pio], "highly injurious or destructive : DEADLY"
I show this comparison only to highlight the meaninglessness of subjective terms such as 'fantasy world' and 'pernicious' when no specificity is given. It is clearly prudent to omit them; but I argue that they are used at the time of each respective publication for convincing effect: style over substance; manipulative, journalistic, poetic wording that disgraces victims of tragedies such as genocide. I implore you to ask: has this same stylistic approach been used in the potential creation of incident reports? We can't possibly know that; and, I emphasise, we can't know, based on the lack of sources in the reports, and even based on the nature of the reports (e.g. the centre was 'phoned' with information), if they happened or if they happened the way they are written in the reports. See, am I now at risk of being called an 'anti-Semitic incident denier?'
In that same report (1989), on page 3, B'nai Brith make reference to a criminal case involving James Keegstra, who was "found guilty of promoting hatred towards the Jewish community by teaching Holocaust denial and Jewish conspiracy theories to his high school students." On appeal, the conviction was quashed "because of constitutional arguments." As they have not detailed or even specified these, I have found the public record of that case here[http://bit.ly/40PdQJ9] Those "constitutional arguments" are detailed in the case summary and outcome:
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the prosecution of a high school teacher in Alberta for anti-Semitic statements in his class was a reasonable and justifiable limitation on freedom of expression. James Keegstra, a high-school teacher in Alberta, told his class that Jews were evil and doubted the occurrence of the Holocaust. He was charged with willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, which he objected on the grounds of freedom of expression. The Court upheld Canadian legislation under which the teacher was charged because it did not suffer from vagueness or broadness, and sought to eliminate racism and hatred.
Essentially speaking: in 1989 Canada had the legal provisions in place to criminalise Holocaust denial, albeit in this instance after appeal. If a teacher can be convicted of Holocaust denial, so can any other citizen under the law there; this was not about his being a teacher, rather about his speaking publicly.
So, in round 2 I will try to see, considering that they were already in place, if these legal provisions had any noticeable effect on hate crimes reported by individual Jews (I am counting Jewish businesses as individuals when a report is made by the proprietor, as that is how it is done in the reports). What I want to know is: is there a reasonable rationale for implementing additional legislation to criminalise Holocaust denial, and does that relate to potential harm levied on individual Jews?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Boop.
Round 2
say something of substance this time
Apologies for waiving the first round. It appears I lost track of time. A special thanks to Pro for not taking up any room the second round, as we are now back on equal footing. ;D
Pro's Case:
- Canada is one of the first countries to try and outlaw Holocaust denial.
- Suppression of opinion, no matter how much it violates mainstream thought, goes against Freedom of Speech/Expression.
- Censorship is not the solution for people you don't agree with.
- Movements are prioritizing silencing people with unpopular opinions rather than protecting people from harm.
- Pushing for holocaust denial legislature in areas where the majority do not believe it happened WILL backfire by making Jews the pariah of the community.
- There is a lack of evidence for the reported incidences in Canada of the Jews claiming to be victims of Anti-Semitism.
BOP:
Pro has a seemingly impossible burden here. Proving that these movements against antisemitism are motivated by a selfish intent to stigmatize differing opinions will require more evidence than what Pro has laid out in Round 1, as all of these are based on Pro's own assumptions and interpretations rather than anything explicitly stated. As this is on-balance, if I can demonstrate strong evidence of the desire to protect Jews, then I believe that will be sufficient enough to win this debate.
Potential Harms of Misinformation
"Canadians have long stood by the Jewish people. And this alliance has only grown stronger with the latest Canadian legislation to combat the rising anti-Semitism seen not just in Canada, but around the globe."
Canada has a very Progressive-based culture, and their support for Jews has been there for quite a long time. The desire to protect Jews from harm and oppression has always remained. With the rise of people like Nick Fuentes, and people like Kanye declaring himself a Nazi, there is a toxic influence that can infect people because of their fanbases.
The legislature is being introduced to try and repel these people. But this debate isn't about whether censorship is a good or a bad idea, the resolution specifically addresses that the desire for regulations is only to stigmatize differing opinions, which is a silly statement that undermines the potential dangers of Holocaust denial.
Conspiracy Theories
- There are people who believe Jews are in control of the world.
- That Jews fabricated the holocaust.
- That Israel is manipulated by Jews behind the scenes.
These beliefs cause harm to Jews by stigmatizing their religion as a problem. With these Witch Hunts, the new regulations and legislature fighting Holocaust denial is actively trying to fight back against this metaphorical lynching. See this quote about what victims of White Supremacy violence had to deal with.:
"Three years ago, violence overtook Charlottesville as hundreds of white supremacists gathered to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. The unrest reached its violent peak when a man drove into a crowd of protesters, killing activist Heather Heyer and injuring 19 others.
As a Holocaust institution, we recognize the signs of rising hate because we know the history. The racist and anti-Semitic ideology, symbols and language of Nazism sadly endure 75 years after the Nazi Party dissolved. The challenge of white supremacy and its tenet of contemporary Nazism is greater now than perhaps at any time since 1945."
^^^ As you can see, Holocaust denial is not simply a "difference in opinion." There wouldn't be a call to police language over offensive views if it weren't responsible for causing harm which Pro seems to be ignoring.
Round 3
Lancelot didn't read my argument and/or is joking.
Canada isn't one of the first countries to enact this type of legislation.
Lancelot, I advise you to either read my round 1 and try again, or go do some research before your next round.
I will destroy your other points in round 4 with a single JPG.
Good luck with your futile pre-emptive strike.
But when one digs up these books (http://bit.ly/3YK2gxe or http://bit.ly/3HT3lMm) one sees they are objectively scientific and/or critique-based in nature - claims of 'hate' and 'anti-Semitic' are no more than attempts to inhibit people looking for and reading these books lest they make their own decisions after examining both sides of the argument.
I’m unsure if Pro is aware of the strong correlation between White Supremacy and Holocaust Denial.
Denying the Holocaust is an attempt to reinstate Nazism, so pushers for Holocaust Denial are recognizing the potential impact and consequences the spread of this campaign could have on society. From compromising people’s judgment to reinforcing harmful political ideology.
Not sure of Pro’s intent at this point, but as a reminder, he needs to demonstrate that the desire part of the resolution is true.
“WHAT IS HOLOCAUST DENIAL?
Holocaust denial is just one of the manifestations of antisemitism. The real motives behind Holocaust denial are antisemitism, wider racism, and the rehabilitation of Nazism. The logic of the deniers is, if the Nazis’ genocide against the Jews makes Nazism unacceptable in today’s climate, then whitewashing this crime could make their doctrine once again acceptable. “
Round 4
supporting montage (zoom and pan): https://imgur.com/23ZPiSz https://i.postimg.cc/qRhvZ2Ky/holocensor.jpg
there is more logic (see logic table) behind criminalising dissent to censor exposure of a myth/exaggeration than there is logic behind criminalising an invisible link between dissent and harm to individual Jews
there is no known correlation I have been able to find between 'denying the Holocaust' and a desire to harm individual Jews
any desire to harm individual Jews is by default logically distinct from one's not believing the Holocaust story to be accurate/truthful
any link between 'denying the Holocaust' and harbouring a wish to harm individual Jews is a myth in itself until proven otherwise
this link is presumed/invented by those who (doesn't matter who) introduce denial legislation to government
either way, they show no regard for whether harm will predictably befall individual Jews or not. I could find no reasoning for this legislation to be introduced other than pre-existing anti-Semitic incident reports, none of which detail 'denying the Holocaust' to be the motivating factor
denying the Holocaust' is however given as a category of anti-Semitic incident, but the reason for the anti-Semitic incident, or motivating factor, if you will, can, by the incident's own nature of being 'denying the Holocaust', NOT be 'denying the Holocaust'
if 'denying the Holocaust' leads to anti-Semitic incidents, it is not the 'denial' that motivates the incident, rather the actor's feeling about the denial.
in court, imagine
"what’s the motive?""he denies the Holocaust."
refusal to believe something is not a motive. Revenge, for example, is a motive that may stem from refusal to believe something, eventually. However I do not see how refusal to believe something would translate to a will for vengeance unless the actor was wronged in some way, for example by his being imprisoned for his refusal to believe the thing in question: the Holocaust story.
the link is not proven and, in my understanding of this topic, not going to be proven.
for anybody Jewish, particularly those working for Jewish NGOs whose stated mission is to 'combat anti-Semitism' and 'enhance the lives of Jewish people', to propose any legislation on discussion of the Holocaust, shows either ignorance, negligence, or a clear desire to censor opposing views, all of which cannot predictably reduce the chance of harm being levied on individual Jews.
the link is not proven and, in my understanding of this topic, not going to be proven.
for anybody Jewish, particularly those working for Jewish NGOs whose stated mission is to 'combat anti-Semitism' and 'enhance the lives of Jewish people', to propose any legislation on discussion of the Holocaust, shows either ignorance, negligence, or a clear desire to censor opposing views, all of which cannot predictably reduce the chance of harm being levied on individual Jews.
furthermore, there is no existing proof of such legislation having reduced harm to invidual Jews where that harm originates in denial of the Holocaust.
if mitigating harm to individual Jews was the primary desire here, it is immediately forlorn to the logic I present in my logic table, unless those that introduce the legislation (can be anybody in this context but I speak of NGOs) are able to show a positive correlation between 'denying the Holocaust' and harm coming to invidual Jews, and seemingly they can't be bothered to do even that - hence a desire to censor opposing views and criminalise thus stigmatise dissent is more likely than a desire to mitigate harm to individual Jews.
Extend.
Round 5
No new arguments in final round.
Nothing to respond to in Con's R4.
Pro’s impossible burden means he hasn’t substantiated the resolution.
All of these arguments are unrelated to the discussion.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision:
Pro presents a stronger argument, as they support their stance on the Holocaust and its effects with numerous sources, leading to the desire to criminalize Holocaust denial. Pro's use of credible sources contributes to a well-structured and persuasive argument. In contrast, Con fails to make any persuasive argument in the first round, and although their formatting improves in the second round, their argument remains unrelated to the debate at hand. As a result, Con's argument becomes non-existent, rendering their sources null and void. Pro's conduct was superior to Con's, as Con barely took the debate seriously until its later stages and acted unprofessional Meanwhile, Pro maintained consistency and professionalism throughout the entire debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote mainly falls short on details, even while seeming knowledgeable about the debate. Additionally, conduct is reserved for true abuses, not merely not taking a debate seriously.
If revoting please also explain a bit about BoP related to the stigmatise piece of the resolution (everyone knows it's illegal in some places, this debate is about the goal of such).
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
Sure but a more specific debate premise and a smaller word count than what I made, please. Don't have a lot of time at the mo
Want to redo this debate?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Slainte // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con (Arguments and Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro did not come close to establishing a BOP based on the resolution. In fact, Pro quotes "the understanding among all parties that antisemitism is an insidious threat, and more tools are needed to fight it." Pro literally quotes the Canadian government's narrative on the purpose of the legislation, which does not support a punitive objective contemplated in the resolution.
I would award conduct points against Pro because of their Round 3 comments, however, the Boop round neautralized that. Sources equal.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The legibility point is not explained.
**************************************************
In order to award legibility points, you must specifically explain how one side's legibility was poor to the point that it harmed comprehension of their arguments.
Fair point. I note that Con did meet the BOP. Specifically -->. "^^^ As you can see, Holocaust denial is not simply a "difference in opinion." There wouldn't be a call to police language over offensive views if it weren't responsible for causing harm which Pro seems to be ignoring." I look forward to the next one. Keep it civil :)
thank you for the vote but BoP was shared and that is specified in the description
rematch of?
Want a rematch?
Thanks for the vote!
Barney,
you can skip my round 1 if you have the fundamental knowledge of the topic at hand. had to adjust my methodology based on Con's input or lack thereof. the logic table should be enough to show a minimum argument alongside the text of my round 4 (with the other images being supportive)
Regarding BoP
I'd say by nature of the setup pro has primary BoP. However, the setup states shared BoP, which mandates con do more than pure refutations.
Further, while the resolution does not have any softening qualifiers (most likely), it likewise lacks absolutes (definitely).
Pro's case seems to largely be that the ban on discussions actually does the very harm it is supposed to be trying to prevent.
I do like con's bullet point breakdown of pro's case. Pro goes overboard with the rejection of it, as the Canada thing seemed to be a fair misinterpretation of the facts as they were laid out (Canada was mentioned first).
If someone does this and it's a strawman, the best course of action is to correct it to how you would like your case summarized.
So going in, I expect minimums from each side
...
Just got a notification that I have an argument due. I'll have to get back to the rereading and voting later.
I split the big image into 4. let me know if you have issues with the logic table image
https://imgur.com/zo7h9cJ
https://imgur.com/9Ew8uQy
https://imgur.com/JyWyFkN
https://imgur.com/pJ5y3mx
remember BoP is shared though.
I will try uploading the pics as tiles and post the links here
Con has a great point that it’s really hard to prove intent, regardless of the results.
That said, I’ll need to read this again before I vote. Some of it really did t hold my attention, and the formatting of those images got messed up for me.
This debate can only be described as a stoppable force meeting a movable object.
This is the link to the official DebateArt Discord Server.
https://discord.gg/t3QwWCBF
homicidal gas chambers in Third Reich camps, 21st Century terror attacks, forensic science and criminal psychology
yours?
Yes.
for debates?
What are your 3 strongest subjects?
No, not much interest. Thanks for asking though.
Pro was looking for an opponent on this subject and it’s possible I may be too busy to see this debate through to completion.
Would this be a topic you’re interested in?
Thank you for this advice. But I won't be having any more to do with this 14yo troll. He didn't miss a round. He intentionally let it lapse. He is a troll and I advise you to stay away from him and/or block him. He will end up wasting your time and not apologising for it either
Here are some of his comment deletions:
https://i.postimg.cc/Bb034K0s/0.png
https://i.postimg.cc/02Zv1jHR/1.png
https://i.postimg.cc/wjGd3Ppw/2.png
Forgive him.
His IQ is the same as his name.
When someone misses rounds you have two good options:
1. Extend. Literally just type "Extend." to serve as a round.
2. Expand your arguments to bury them should they come back (some opponents will always forfeit one round, so for them this is best).
But I didn't even tag you.
You're the one tagging me.
you're blocked now
cos you wouldn't be silent on your own
Sounds like a threat.
Are you going to end my career by spamming everyone with links?
links work fine, as you know
you're better off staying silent now
you're done
predictable, dude, so predictable
you might as well just stay silent now
here they are again (they're the same links btw)
https://i.postimg.cc/Bb034K0s/0.png
https://i.postimg.cc/02Zv1jHR/1.png
https://i.postimg.cc/wjGd3Ppw/2.png
ok good on you.
good luck with your exams
let me know when you want to do the debate and I will recreate it
also see the screenshots for proof Lancelot was trolling the whole time
I'd not take anything he says seriously if I was you
seems like a frustrated teenager with no respect for people's time and no apologies forthcoming for those whose time he has wasted
just more jokes
he might as well go stare at a mirror
and get some inspiration
you're trolling and badly
https://i.postimg.cc/Bb034K0s/0.png
https://i.postimg.cc/02Zv1jHR/1.png
https://i.postimg.cc/wjGd3Ppw/2.png
you know, I used to have a friend just like you, when I was 15
I know all your gimmicks probably
but I'm up for surprises
such as you failing to make me yawn 10mins after I downed an espresso
weak...
^and before you try it: no, my espresso wasn't weak; you are
He's spamming you.
I can't do the debate this week because I have three separate exams for my classes, as well as two extracurricular competitions, lol. I have not changed my mind in any way whatsoever - I simply do not want to forfeit 4 rounds.
Woah, why did I get tagged 3 times?
What is going on??!!
answer my question from before: "what's going on? I said no timewasters" concerning your r1 argument
he deleted the comment btw
It read "are you trolling me?"
and I took a screen in case he tries to call me a liar
answer my question from before: "what's going on? I said no timewasters" concerning your r1 argument
answer my question from before: "what's going on? I said no timewasters" concerning your r1 argument
case in point, see lancelot's comment. not so irrational after all of me to attack a troll, p.s. all I wanted from the start was an explanation for the "boop" and he is still refusing to even comment on it i.e. he is trolling and probably giggling IRL and I won't be wasting any more time on him.
why not do the debate now? you said "your resolution is so poorly articulated it could be defeated by a few paragraphs."
wouldn't even need to do rounds 2-5...
maybe you're not so sure anymore? I get that a lot with this type of topic no matter where I go
I don't blame you really - the more you dig into this stuff the more you start doubting long-held convictions
I'm defending him because it seems like you're irrationally attacking him. I tend to dislike irrational attacks, regardless of who they're on.
I'm down to do the debate sometime, probably not this week tho.
ok we'll see what he says.
not sure why you're defending him. he can always just jump in and say something (and not delete it immediately after so the person who gets the notification sees nothing when they go looking for it)
p.s. he is trolling tho
anyway what about the debate, want to do it then?
"He didn't explain why he couldn't complete the round"
I would think that it was implied by his waiving - he simply ran out of time.
"He didn't apologise for not completing it"
He said "my bad."
"He didn't say anything but "boop" (including after I asked him what was going on)'
He apologized for his waiving, and was considerate enough to waive instead of forfeiting in the first place.
Austin, he is trolling me.
He just now wrote a comment reply here, which gave me a notification, then when I went to look at it there was no reply.
He didn't explain why he couldn't complete the round
He didn't apologise for not completing it
He didn't say anything but "boop" (including after I asked him what was going on)
He is playing childish games
Okay so you want to be the contender on this debate if I remake it?
Yes, it is an implicit challenge if you care to accept it.
BTW, waiving is slightly rude, but it was considerate of him to at least not forfeit.
Austin, could it?
Seems like it hasn't been done so far.
... are you challenging me?
Anyway, who cares about lives outside the site. I set the time limit to two weeks. Lancelot could see that before he accepted. Not my problem. You don't say yes to a job shift then call in 2 hours into it and say 'oh, sorry, I have a life going on here'
Well, you do if you're a bum, I suppose
Contrary to popular belief, some people have lives outside of this site. Also BTW, your resolution is so poorly articulated it could be defeated by a few paragraphs.
oh yes, I got pwned (while laughing as well)
would make sense.
if he didn't wait until the last minute in the two-week argument period to write "boop"; and
if he didn't complete like five other debates in the two-week argument period; and
if he replied to me when I asked what was going on; and
if he explained what he meant by "boop" when I asked him
he's acting like a child because he disagrees with my debate premise yet can't seem to articulate that in the format of a debate.
so why would he accept the contender position?
thinks it's funny to waste people's time, or something, who knows what kids think these days